The Postulate of the Three Regimes of Economic Growth Contradicted by Data

Economic growth in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, countries of the former USSR, Africa and Latin America were analysed. It is demonstrated that the fundamental postulate of the Unified Growth Theory about the existence of the three regimes of growth (Malthusian regime, post-Malthusian regime and sustained-growth regime) is contradicted by data. These regimes did not exist. In particular, there was no escape from the Malthusian trap because there was no trap. Economic growth in all these regions was not stagnant but hyperbolic. Unified Growth Theory is fundamentally incorrect. However, this theory is also dangerously misleading because it claims a transition from the endless epoch of stagnation to the new era of sustained economic growth, the interpretation creating the sense of security and a promise of prosperity. The data show that the opposite is true. Economic growth in the past was sustained and secure. Now, it is supported by the increasing ecological deficit. The long-term sustained and secure economic growth has yet to be created. It did not happen automatically, as suggested incorrectly by the Unified Growth Theory.